Enter your email to subscribe:

On Tuesday the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a decision exercising broad
personal jurisdiction over a UK Manufacturer who distributed goods through an
independent Ohio distributor sued by a resident of New Jersey.

“Today, all the world is a market. In our contemporary
international economy, trade knows few boundaries, and it is now commonplace
that dangerous products will find their way, through purposeful marketing, to
our nation's shores and into our State. The question before us is whether the
jurisdictional law of this State will reflect this new reality. .... Due process permits this State to provide a judicial forum
for its citizens who are injured by dangerous and defective products placed in
the stream of commerce by a foreign manufacturer that has targeted a
geographical market that includes New Jersey. See id.
at 480-83, 508 A.2d 1127. The exercise of jurisdiction in this case
comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

The
Court articulated the rule that "A foreign manufacturer will be
subject to this State's jurisdiction if it knows or reasonably should know that
through its distribution scheme its products are being sold in New
Jersey."

What were defendant's contacts with New Jersey? It targeted the U.S. market.The Court explains:

“It did so by engaging McIntyre America, an Ohio-based
company, as its exclusive United States distributor for an approximately seven-year
period ending in 2001. J. McIntyre knew or reasonably should have known that
the distribution system extended to the entire United States, because its
company officials, along with McIntyre America officials, attended scrap metal
trade shows and conventions in various American cities where its products were
advertised. Indeed, J. McIntyre's president was present at the Las Vegas trade
convention where his exclusive distributor introduced plaintiff's employer to
the allegedly defective McIntyre Model 640 Shear that severed four of
plaintiff's fingers.”

There were two forceful dissents in the case.Here is a taste:

“Repeated
quotations and soaring language about the realities of the global marketplace
might compel the casual reader to follow what appears to be the majority's
relentless logic. But those rhetorical techniques cannot mask the fact that the
majority today embarks on a path that stretches our notions about due process,
and about what is fundamentally fair, beyond the breaking point.”